Posted
by
timothyon Tuesday April 29, 2008 @09:19AM
from the blurry-youtube-always-convinces-me dept.

TechRadar writes "A hacker has turned his OQO ultraportable into the world's smallest Mac running Leopard. 'I will warn you this project is not for the plug and play crowd but definitely do-able,' the hacker, 'TRF' says. Interesting, given the OQO was designed by ex-Apple employees." It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac.

Given that the OS is what most people interact with all day, is it really so wrong to call it a Mac? Most the purported Mac advantages are to do with usability after all. You're certainly getting more of the Mac experience than a PC one.

When it's completely painless and everything "just works" I might agree with you.

I'd be careful about defining a system's Mac/not-Mac status in terms of things "just working". OSX on Apple's approved hardware configs will work without problems for most day to day tasks - but I've seen plenty of tasks where naive assumptions can and will stop things from working.

Unless a Mac intended to run Supercollider and Quarks [nabble.com] or MySQL [robbyonrails.com] (for instance) ceases to be a Mac in your definition, I think you'd be on safer

Down at the hardware level, it kind of is these days IMO. The only real differences are the controlled selection of hardware (which is probably a bigger deal that I'm suggesting here, mind you) and the OS that's running.

Clones like this and the Psystar [macobserver.com] machine must have Jobs and the other control freaks at Apple screaming bloody murder right now. For years, their bread-and-butter has been tying their OS to their (IMHO overpriced) hardware. Now it seems that a lot of people are getting sick of it (if the preorders at Psystar are any indication, a *LOT* of people). Not only that, but the more heavy-handed Apple gets, the more they risk that cool-chique image as they appear more and more like just another greedy corporation (i.e., more like MS).

It might well be time for them to consider doing what they could have done years ago, realeasing a general version of Leopard that will run on non-Apple PC's. They might even consider doing an "Apple Certified" program for Dell and other companies wanting to offer OS X as an option for their customers. If their hardware is truly superior, then it won't cost them much hardware business and will cut deeply into Windows' market dominance. In the end, everyone would win--most noteably the consumer (and those who like building their own machines).

Maybe they'll start to worry more about market share once they're done counting the piles and piles of money they're currently making. Seriously, how hard is it to grasp that market share != financial success, and financial success != market share?

I think Apple is playing a different game than you imagine them to be playing. Market share isn't as important as influence. They aren't playing Monopoly or Risk, but instead it's a sort of race game where the goal is to lead the pack in "coolness points".

I think that's been the source of the friction between Microsoft and Apple since the Seventies: Apple was more interested in making neat stuff, whereas Microsoft has always been about the profits and dominating the market.

No, the goal is to make a huge profit. Coolness doesn't have shit to do with it, unless it makes you more money.

Of course both wanted profits, it's just that Apple failed more so to speak. And yes, back in the days Steve Jobs may have cared about what the consumers wanted/should be getting. Nowadays it seems less so.

That's the meta-game. The game which rewards how well you play the chosen game.Microsoft: "We can ensure long-term value by dominating the playing field!" (the Monopoly/Risk way)

Apple: "We can ensure long-term value by being better and doing new, cool stuff!" (the race/exploration game way)

Both methods are risky. Microsoft's risk is that they trap themselves into only defining themselves through comparison. Apple risks ignoring the competition too much. But in the end, I think Apple's approach is better in

Like I said in a different response, there is a subtle difference. It's not making cool stuff instead of making a profit, but ensuring a profit by making cool stuff. And that is an argument that seems to convince enough shareholders that Apple's stock is still doing well.

If they can choose from say 80$ in profit of average OS sale, $150 for OS + low-end designed PC or $600 for high-end PC with some options I wouldn't be so sure about that.Two years ago everyone was complaining how dead Nintendo was because their sales was so low, but atleast they made a profit of their products. Sure Microsoft sold more Xboxes, but at a loss... And sure Sony sold more consoles, but they (eventually, I don't remember the numbers, so don't trust me on this one:) didn't earned as much money.

Not only that, but the more heavy-handed Apple gets, the more they risk that cool-chique image as they appear more and more like just another greedy corporation (i.e., more like MS).

Most people interested in hardware Apple doesn't already sell are techies/enthusiasts and businesses. None of them should hold any illusions about Apple being anything other than another greedy corporation (just like Microsoft).

If their hardware is truly superior, then it won't cost them much hardware business [...]

What makes you say that "a lot of" people are "sick of it"? It seems pretty clear that a majority of people buy Macs because they don't want to deal with the hassle attached to using Windows and Linux computers. Hacking OSX to run on non-Apple hardware isn't easy, so the folks doing aren't really Apple's target market anyway. In any case, I find it hard to believe that the folks jumping through these hoops represent "a lot of people".Let me repeat that because so few people seem to get it: hackers are not

Back that up. Just because it's a PC, doesn't mean automatically it's noisy. So far, there aren't any reviews or measurements made that I've seen so far.

I've owned quiet Xeon workstations, as well as quiet desktop systems too. Heck, my G5s have been noisier than my PC Xeon workstation. Among other things, I think the ATI 1900 that Apple used in their Mac Pros have been excessively turned down in speed, they seem to go flaky after a year. Apple has had similar problems with G

I meant the fan speed on the ATI 1900. I had to have mine replaced by Apple a few weeks ago. Hopefully it doesn't happen again, but I just can't help but think the fan runs too slow for its cooling needs.

Sure it's not a scientific measurement of noise, but the fan whirr is definitely noticable. The Dell workstation on my desk at work is quieter, as is my Mac Pro (think - the real noise comes from the hard drives, not fans, and that's the standard seeking noises when they're

What most people ask in my environment about the iMac's (from the G5 onwards but especially the new batch): where is the computer? since they expect a big bulky or at least some type of tower where you put the CPU in. I have a dead iMac G5 next to a same size dead LCD screen in my office and sometimes one of the passer-by's ask: if you're throwing away those monitors, can I have them.I like the new iMac's for desktop environments. They take up less space, are quite powerful and they're also easy to repair

Well, at the very least, you can assume that the Psystar will stay cool and won't suffer from the same heat problems that the iMacs suffer from. It seems that Apple really didn't take into consideration the heat generated by the hardware they use when they cram it into an ultrathin case.

Can't fight the Hackers without getting even more fascist than Apple already is right now.Might as well license an OEM copy of OSX to a few PC Makers, in exchange for 10% of the sale and a small fee per machine OSX is installed on.

Apple makes most of its money via iPods, iPhones, iTunes, etc now. It isn't the old 1990's Apple that bled money via Newton, Printer, Scanner, Pippin, etc support and sales that cost more to support than they brought in. That is what really killed the Mac Clones in the first place

Apple makes HUGE margins on their laptops and desktops. Some reports say the highest margins in the whole industry.iPods, though profitable, are sold at a lower profit margin to move them faster and they make a profit through volume.

Again with the clones. It would RUIN Apple if they tried it again right now. They are selling stuff like crazy now based off the impression that their stuff "just works". Start installing OS X on any old PC with who knows what inside and that experience goes away. It becomes a m

If Apple put MacOS onto other machines, MS would pull support for MSOffice on MacOS in a New York Nanosecond. That would seriously batter Apple computer sales, because many of us (myself included) are forced by our employers to use MSOffice. Yes, OpenOffice is a lovely thing, but our IT dept and management doesn't give a flying fuck about OpenOffice, and never will. It's an MS shop an

Naw. Apple isn't going to sweat this at all. With a record number of Macs sold last quarter, something like this won't even really register on their radar.They probably love it actually. It's free publicity for them really. More and more people becoming dissatisfied with Windows and doing crazy things like this. It helps Apple by damaging Microsoft.

Apple is really all about the experience, the relatively painless experience of being able to use a computer without really having to think much about the comput

As does the Thinkpad on my desk that was purchased in the late 90's/early00s that I'm now using as my on-the-go staging server.This company generally buys high-end, so I'm sure this was a helluva expensive laptop when they bought it, but still, it's 10 years old and includes the motion sensors.

IIRC, they had some commercials about this feature.. showing a laptop flying off a desk in slo-mo while the narrator talks about how the Hard Disk won't push the platters into the heads because the laptop knows when i

There is nothing that separates a "Mac" from a PC: the Mac is, for all purposes, an Intel, IBM-compatible PC. Generally the Mac fans say that "OSX makes the Mac", but when they see OSX running on non-Apple PCs then confusion settles and vague sentences appear, like the above, that seem to be based on some mystical characteristic of a "Mac".

You're right though, and the cases *are* nice. The design is well-thought and there are some nice details that show a certain amount of attention to little things that in aggregate can make a difference.

Still, hardly enough to position modern Macs as more then Apple PCs; the PowerPC times of yore are over, and I think that deep-down many Apple fans regret that decision, since the Mhz jump has come at the expenses of lack of differentiation.

Nope! We love our new Intel Macs! They're faster than our old G5's!Really, this whole notion that we need to "be different" is blown way out of proportion. Was I stunned when I heard that Apple was switching to Intel? Sure. I never saw that coming!

I was thrilled to think about the speedy new laptops that would be coming out eventually and the possibilities that Intel Macs afforded a Mac user. I'm not a serious gamer by any stretch of the imagination, but being able to poke around in the world of Windows gam

So what you're actually saying is that Macs are special in the hardware sense in that they are designed and produced differently than the average PC, although their internals are very similar to PC's (Apple does use special CPU steppings and GPU firmware FWIW), and special in the software sense in that they are the only personal computers that can run OS X legally and fully supported.

Can you no please explain how Macs are *not* special from common PC's again?

That's one of the reasons why I view the MacBook fuckup as something even more serious: not only does Apple control the hardware they want to supply, they manage to ship sub-par choices!

There are some nice things about an Apple laptop: the design is nice, some details are nice, etc. But it's not like it's in a league of it's own: when one comes down to it it's a PC with selected components.

As a 22 year Mac user, I think it's pretty cool to see OS X running on a non-Apple box. Am I going to go out and do that? Probably not. Too much effort and know how required of me to do it and maintain it. I just need a box that works out of the box.

Until Apple does license OS X to 3rd parties, I will stick with Apple brand hardware and applaud the techies out there that love tinkering and making this stuff work on non-apple boxes.

I have nothing against Apple, Apple users, or OSX. If anything I've got some thing that rub me off, and others that attract me. The ratio was enough to influence the wife in buying a Macbook, so I'm not exactly allergic to Apple.

As with all communities there are always some things to like and dislike, and I was pointing at one common Mac behavior: the ofte misplaced elitism. Elitism by itself, in some amounts, it's not bad: heck, most GNU/Linux users are "elitists" in a different way.

If you go down to China Town and buy some knockoff Nikes they will not, if fact, be real Nikes. They *may* be higher quality products, they may be better designed. But they will not be Nikes.

This is the Apple argument. People pay exorbitant prices for commodity PCs strapped up with a BSD operating system and some shiny widgets. But they aren't buying that - they're buying an Apple. It's that simple.

By "quality hardware", I'm sure that we would mean something more important than that.

Indeed. My Thinkpad had my Macbook Pro beat to hell in the quality of the hardware. It was more solidly built, had a far superior keyboard, and came with a mini dock (port extender) so I could just bring it in to work in the morning and set it down and go straight to work... no fumbling around for cables or having the stupid "magsafe" connector come out without my noticing it when someone drops a pile of books on my desk..

having the stupid "magsafe" connector come out without my noticing it when someone drops a pile of books on my desk...

I have been trying to duplicate this by dropping books onto my desk next to my MacBook and have yet to do so. Is it a feature unique to the pro? Or did you mean that you dropped the books directly on the adapter?

I don't know whether they dropped the books on the cable, on another cable that tugged on the power cable, or missed the cable altogether. As I said, I didn't notice at the time that it had happened, or I would have plugged it back in. When I returned to my desk my laptop had shut down to save power, and there was nobody else in the office at the time.I have also had the magsafe connector pull away under trivial tension many times. I have never had any problem with any other power connector on any other lap

The magsafe connector may be an advance over the funky connector on the Powerbooks and iBooks, but a plain barrel connector is much simpler and more reliable.

You sir, obviously don't own a Labrador Retriever puppy that finds anything smaller than a 2 x 4 completely invisible. The magsafe connector has saved my MBP several times from Trips to the Repair Depot. And yes, I've had "regular" power connectors go sideways and fail, with predictably spectacular results.

One of the two laptops I owned previous to a Macbook had the power connector break off the motherboard. And this from completely normal use. Never had it pulled off a table or desk. Never dropped it. Just having it plugged in was enough to cause it to snap.

I'm a long time Mac user who recently made the switch - to a Hackintosh. The OS really is central to the Apple proposition. But.. the hardware is also a big part of it - in terms of the reliability that only comes with total control of hardware and software.

Hardware is also important in terms of the user's perception of quality. I'm using the Apple Cinema Display I previously used on my Powermac and it is still far superior to the Samsung panel I bought recently for my kid.

But all that said, I like the fact that my Hackintosh cost me a lot less than the new top of the range iMac (granted, I already owned the Cinema Display), and it still outperforms the real deal.

However, 10.5.3 may be the end of the road for Hackintosh as I'm sure all the recent noise around this and Psystar will have Apple bringing down the hammer and breaking OS X for non-Apple hardware very soon.

The worst thing they could have done was going x86, their hardware safety shell was PPC and now it's gone.

Maybe that's why they picked up a certain chipmaker for $278 million recently? I'm sure they can still compile Leopard (or it's next generation) to PCC and universal binaries are everywhere. Plus PA Semi's chips sound more efficient than anything else they could get their hands on right now, a MacBook (Pro) that ran all day on a charge would be sweet.

They could starting querying the hardware more. Right now, OSX will run on a Pentium 4 chip, despite no Mac ever shipping with a P4 (except some early development loaner machines). It would be pretty trivial to have OSX query the CPU, and if it detects a P4 or some other chip that no Mac has shipped with, not run. And so on and so forth.Then to take it one step further, they could start using DRM like the TPM chip to ensure the machine is a Mac. This might take some hardware changes, but if they started

Apple is not going to roll out new computers with a completely new processor design now that the Intel transition is nearing completion.Apple is very happy with their relationship with Intel and the recent purchase probably has more to do with mobile, server or embedded devices than it does with their computer lines.

Your average Mac gets about 5 years of life and if Apple started cutting into that with DRM... there would be riots. A Mac's lifespan is one of the things we love about our Macs.

Most interesting to me is the processor - it's not AMD or Intel - it's a Via C7M. Via owns Centaur technology, the Texas based owner of the Cyrix IP, which they acquired from National Semiconductor. They still release chips 2-3 generations behind the leaders at larger form factors, but apparently quality control is much better than Cyrix (at least I haven't read of anything horrible about them).

I didn't even know that chip supported SSE2 or better, but that was ignorance (see wiki [wikipedia.org])

Okay Apple does make good hardware. If you look at equal quality systems the prices are actually pretty close. And yes there is a difference in quality between X86 computers.When you get a $600 notebook from BestCityDepoMax they really cut corners on things you may never notice but then you may.The software I work with everyday records audio. Guess what? On some of the notebooks that customers buy the audio recording is really bad!Not only is it bad but the recording hardware just works strange. On some the

If you don't understand that the friggin CPU architecture is not what makes hardware superior or inferior for the majority of Apple's target audience, you are most likely not part of this majority...Apple hardware is superior in the sense that it is integrated, quiet and (to a lot of people) good-looking. The user experience of the hardware and software combines is what makes the hardware superior. I'm not going into the 'Apple hardware is overpriced' argument too much anymore, but let me say this: Apple ha

The company which became IBM was founded in 1888 as the Tabulating Machine Company by Herman Hollerith, in Broome County, New York. It was incorporated as Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR) on June 16, 1911, and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1916. IBM adopted its current name in 1924, when it became a Fortune 500 company.

I had no idea Apple was that old! And here I thought Steve was in his 50's.

My guess is that Wiki links are more "trustworthy". That means they look less like pure PR (or like a misleading goatse-like link). Wikipedia isn't unimpeachable, but more flagrant troll-edits would get quashed soon.There's another thing that may play a role here as well: slashdotting the site. The Wiki can handle the tonnes of Slashdotters out to RTFA (including all 23 of you who actually read it) better than a small company or a private page can.

The article links to a fuzzy YouTube video [youtube.com] of the device going through what looks like a boot loader, then booting Leopard, then flipping through a variety of Mac applications.One can also hear what I think are the OQO's fans working overtime to keep up.

The video looks credible, but it would be nice if it were recorded with something that could focus in closer.

Hackintoshes apparently are Slashdot-worthy now. Ridiculous.As with relation to this post, 90% of the work is done with the hacked ISO of Leopard you get off where you want (Google is your friend) by people like Zephyroth. He might have done a little hacking, but I do not care really. This is not ground-breaking. The Psystar article was more ground-breaking because if Psystar exists it is a company trying to market 'clone Macs' without sanction from Apple. I bravely say, anyone (who knows about osx86 and on

Lol, I love the way you say Slashdot-worthy, like slashdot is some great and highbrow institution. Hello, Lego cases are slashdot worthy. Saying 'Slashdot-worthy' is like saying Karaoke-worthy, or gutter-worthy, or rubbish bin-worthy.

Forget the weird grammatical structure, what exactly is this supposed to mean? That it runs OS X poorly? That it is not Apple hardware? That it's not authorized? Thanks for the enlightening comment Timothy!

"I just put my dick in your moms mouth, but one thing your mom is not is a condom."

I don't understand people tagging stuff like this "hard hack". Sure, it's not as trivial as installing XP or even Linux or some flavor of BSD, but let's see.
Is there any original development done? Nope... just leveraging existing OSx86 work and other odds and ends around Darwin/x86. You're doing the work of an OEM. All you need to do is find a hardare platform reasonably close to one of the Macs (not hard, it's all Intel based), or pluck and pick some third-party drivers. Yay. Is it a hack? Yes. Hard hac

These machines are neat, but holy shit they're expensive! Why is there such a leap in price when you go from a PDA that costs a few hundred bucks to one of these things that costs between $1000 and $2100 (when not on sale)? This is actually one of the most expensive portable Macs. I think I'd rather bolt a keyboard onto an iPod Touch.